Originally Posted by tiger1000
Oh God Shakib didn't come top on a cricinfo poll thats mainly visited by Indians

Kallis was less popular than Flintoff worldwide... Freddie must have been some player right?

You lied previously, when you tried expressing your opinion as fact, you got held up about that, your views lose credibility when you blatantly lie when you can't back up your opinion

Flintoff is a better all-rounder than kallis. I don't have the full broadcast of each of the matches Shakib played in county. So it's hard to back it up. Not because it's a lie, rather because the full matches can not be found. I am still standing by my opinion. It doesn't change. I have heard it, that is what matters to me.

__________________
My Twitter: www.twitter.com/Bangla13c
The tongue is like a Lion. If you let it loose, it will wound someone - Imam Ali (R.A)

Originally Posted by SportingBD
Flintoff is a better all-rounder than kallis. I don't have the full broadcast of each of the matches Shakib played in county. So it's hard to back it up. Not because it's a lie, rather because the full matches can not be found. I am still standing by my opinion. It doesn't change. I have heard it, that is what matters to me.

You said most said this, when it wasn't true, but you kept trying to push it.

Flintoff is a better all rounder than Kallis.. Am a huge Freddie fan, but that is simply incorrect, and it's not even opinion, it's a simple fact. Am sorry you know nothing about cricket or all rounders at the least, this tells me all I need to know, am not continuing with this conversation anymore

Just to let you know, whilst Kallis wasn't much of an all rounder this decade, he was a great one in the 90's and 00's, second greatest all rounder of all time, second greatest player of all time. If Flintoff is better than Kallis, then sure Stokes, ashwin Jadeja, moeen are all a superior to Shakib

Originally Posted by tiger1000
You said most said this, when it wasn't true, but you kept trying to push it.

Flintoff is a better all rounder than Kallis.. Am a huge Freddie fan, but that is simply incorrect, and it's not even opinion, it's a simple fact. Am sorry you know nothing about cricket or all rounders at the least, this tells me all I need to know, am not continuing with this conversation anymore

Just to let you know, whilst Kallis wasn't much of an all rounder this decade, he was a great one in the 90's and 00's, second greatest all rounder of all time, second greatest player of all time. If Flintoff is better than Kallis, then sure Stokes, ashwin Jadeja, moeen are all a superior to Shakib

Now you are making opinions into fact.. Flintoff is not a better All-Rounder than Kallis? complete joker. have you taken a survey amongst fans? or like amongst expert cricket analysers lol... It's your opinion, I respect that.

Just don't make it into a fact, please.

Flintoff is more of a genuine all-rounder, compared to Kallis. In the sense Flintoff had more responsibility, especially as a bowler.

__________________
My Twitter: www.twitter.com/Bangla13c
The tongue is like a Lion. If you let it loose, it will wound someone - Imam Ali (R.A)

Originally Posted by SportingBD
Now you are making opinions into fact.. Flintoff is not a better All-Rounder than Kallis? complete joker. have you taken a survey amongst fans? or like amongst expert cricket analysers lol... It's your opinion, I respect that.

Just don't make it into a fact, please.

Flintoff is more of a genuine all-rounder, compared to Kallis. In the sense Flintoff had more responsibility, especially as a bowler.

Flintoff better than Kallis hahahahaha

He might have had the edge with the ball, but better all rounder, now I've heard everything

He might have had the edge with the ball, but better all rounder, now I've heard everything

Yeah, it's a facepalm moment when someone compares Flintoff with Kallis. In their heydays, they were comparable as bowlers, but Kallis belonged to whole another level as a batsman (Test average 55, ODI 44).

Flintoff would be more useful ODIs. kallis doesn't bat fast enough which is the problem, kohli, ab, viv etc would get a spot as batsmen ahead of him and kallis isn't a good enough bowler to be picked as a front line bowler so that puts him at the number 7/8 spot which is out of position for him plus he doesn't bat fast enough plus you'd pick the better more dangerous bowler in that position.

Hence it's not so laughable to compare Flintoff with kallis.

Straight up though the averages do favour kallis.

But ODIs, kallis' strike rate is 72, bowling average is 31 compared to flintoff's 24. Flintoff also has a better economy and strike rate with the ball. As a bat the average is much in favour of kallis but strike rate of Flintoff is 88/89 compared to that 72 for kallis and batting at 7/8 strike rate is very important plus a 32 bat average is still very respectable for a 7/8.

So the only way you're getting kallis into the team is if he bats up the order but there are many more capable ODIs bats to pick ahead of kallis.

How many ODI bowlers average 24 with a 32 average strike nearing 90, and pretty sure kallis in a particular position in ODIs averages over 40 with a pretty high strike rate.

Originally Posted by Gowza
Flintoff would be more useful ODIs. kallis doesn't bat fast enough which is the problem, kohli, ab, viv etc would get a spot as batsmen ahead of him and kallis isn't a good enough bowler to be picked as a front line bowler so that puts him at the number 7/8 spot which is out of position for him plus he doesn't bat fast enough plus you'd pick the better more dangerous bowler in that position.

Hence it's not so laughable to compare Flintoff with kallis.

Straight up though the averages do favour kallis.

But ODIs, kallis' strike rate is 72, bowling average is 31 compared to flintoff's 24. Flintoff also has a better economy and strike rate with the ball. As a bat the average is much in favour of kallis but strike rate of Flintoff is 88/89 compared to that 72 for kallis and batting at 7/8 strike rate is very important plus a 32 bat average is still very respectable for a 7/8.

So the only way you're getting kallis into the team is if he bats up the order but there are many more capable ODIs bats to pick ahead of kallis.

How many ODI bowlers average 24 with a 32 average strike nearing 90, and pretty sure kallis in a particular position in ODIs averages over 40 with a pretty high strike rate.

Although in t20s it's closer, possibly in kallis' favour.

I was really talking from a test stand point

As for odis, it's closer than tests for sure

Flintoff is the better bowler

As for batting, it's not even close, you don't judge them by looking at all time XI, you judge them against each other and fact is Kallis was the backbone of the team, Flintoff was a lower order slogger

How many average 32 and 24, well how many average 44 and 31

All this without mentioning longevity

Further, an ability of a player is mostly judged on test cricket ability and Kallis dwarfs Flintoff there

Originally Posted by tiger1000
I was really talking from a test stand point

As for odis, it's closer than tests for sure

Flintoff is the better bowler

As for batting, it's not even close, you don't judge them by looking at all time XI, you judge them against each other and fact is Kallis was the backbone of the team, Flintoff was a lower order slogger

How many average 32 and 24, well how many average 44 and 31

All this without mentioning longevity

Further, an ability of a player is mostly judged on test cricket ability and Kallis dwarfs Flintoff there

From a test standpoint it is a no contest but in ODIs they offer different roles, Freddie is a top quality bowler and lower order hitter whereas kallis is very much an anchor batsmen who can give you 10 overs if needed.

Kallis was actually quite capable as a bowler but in ODIs Freddie was an atg bowler if not then was very close to it.

Imo you need a common context to compare them otherwise you can't do a fair comparison because they did play different roles.

For me anytime if I could only pick one, I'll take a 24 average bowler with a 32 average bat striking at near 90 over a 44 average bat striking at 72 with a bowling average of 31.

Because at the end of it Freddie was an atg bowler in ODIs and a consistent enough lower order hitter. Kallis's ODI batting might of had a 44 average but he was nowhere near an atg bat in ODIs and his bowling was good but was it better than Freddie's batting? Imo no, maybe on par but then that would leave Freddie ahead because of his atg bowling.

Originally Posted by SportingBD
If you compare Kallis and Flintoff format by format.

Test: Kallis (mainly for his batting)
ODI: Flintoff
T20: Flintoff.

that just how I take it. I would pick Flintoff. It's only in Test Kallis is superb, mainly as a batsman. You do need to recognise, most of Kallis era, he always had good bowlers bowling for SA.

Everyone has a opinion, and I have mine.

if it is just your opinion then dont push your opinion as fact lmao especially when you lied about what ppl were saying about shakib in county and bbl. Just cos you heard one commie say something in one county match doesnt mean the whole australian and english media were talking down on shakib LOL.

Then when were grabbing at straws making ridiculous comments such as commies calling him "Al Hasan" which somehow means that commies dont know Al Hasan at all which means that all commies dont rate Al Hasan which means that Al Hasan in reality is a poor player.

Next time just say u heard one time where commies might have said something about shakib. Don't generalise LOL. It is exactly what western media does with muslims. One muslim does something bad then suddenly whole Ummah is responsible.

Come on now, Flintoff > Kallis as a complete allrounder? Nah man. Kallis was a complete allrounder, Flintoff was more of a bowling allrounder. You probably would pick Flintoff the BOWLER ahead of Kallis but in no world would he top Kallis as the better allrounder.

And did I read Ashwin > Shakib as a complete allrounder? Lol. As a bowler, yes. As an allrounder ... LOL.

Just like Kallis, Shakib is a complete allrounder. Not someone who can bat a bit or bowl a bit. It's questionable of he will end up as an atg but that doesn't mean he is not a complete allrounder. Ashwin and Jadeja are both bowling allrounder, no one expects them to win matches with the bat.

Originally Posted by godzilla
Come on now, Flintoff > Kallis as a complete allrounder? Nah man. Kallis was a complete allrounder, Flintoff was more of a bowling allrounder. You probably would pick Flintoff the BOWLER ahead of Kallis but in no world would he top Kallis as the better allrounder.

And did I read Ashwin > Shakib as a complete allrounder? Lol. As a bowler, yes. As an allrounder ... LOL.

Just like Kallis, Shakib is a complete allrounder. Not someone who can bat a bit or bowl a bit. It's questionable of he will end up as an atg but that doesn't mean he is not a complete allrounder. Ashwin and Jadeja are both bowling allrounder, no one expects them to win matches with the bat.

Shakib isn't comparable to Ashwin as an all rounder? Wow. Just because Shakib-Al-Hasan plays for an inferior team like Bangladesh and considered as a vital cog in Bangladeshi lineup doesn't necessarily mean he would've been treated similarly if he had played for other top teams.

Had he played for a superior team he wouldn't have been selected just for his bowling or batting alone, which means he isn't a complete allrounder. If u truly believe that shakib is skillful enough to get I to the indian or southafrican side just as a batsman or as a bowler then I've to say that u r living in ur own lala land.

Shakib is an excellent allrounder but he still hasn't achieved much to be compared to players like Flintoff or kallis. And statement like "he's way better allrounder than Ashwin" is just hilarious. Ashwin is an excellent bowling allrounder whereas shakib is an excellent batting allrounder.

I'll put shakib ahead of Ashwin in lois due to his ability to score quickly, but in tests Ashwin is slightly ahead as an all rounder. Unlike shakib neither does he consistently play against minnows like Zimbabwe nor does he get enough chance to bat to pad his batting stats.

But shakib as an all rounder is highly overrated in this forum. Some ppl even call him GOAT... LOL. Shakib is a good allrounder in lois but he still hasn't crossed the level of pre ban hafeez or daniel vettory. Players like Flintoff, kallis r still way ahead of him.